Displaying 18,211 To 18,240 Of 19,504 Comments Kesmarn, you’re right about the incentive to make less money to avoid penalties and there’s one other unintended consequence. If one was working at a lower wage job and couldn’t afford $400 – $600 a month in insurance premiums or a $2,000 penalty each year for not carrying insurance, a solution would be to make less money so the government would pay the premium and there would be no penalty. However, how would one pay for other necessities? One of probably many unintended results, will be the Welfare-type disincentive to get married. First, two people who are making lower wages, if married, might rise above the level that would qualify them individually for gov’t assistance on premiums. Second, both would be liable on their tax returns for either not being insured. By not being married, one of them could not have insurance and the other could without recourse. And in a way, as javaz suggested a while back, Obama may indeed bring us to bipartisanship with Teabaggers and Progressives marching on DC to protest an oppressive mandate that financially enslaves citizens to Insurance companies. Who woulda thunk it? They better get this right or all the promise of the Progressive agenda will go down in flames. » Posted By AdLib On December 15, 2009 @ 9:56 am As has been mentioned here, we need desperately and urgently to make our voices heard by the Dems in the Senate. There are several organizations and sites compiling petitions, I am partial to MoveOn.org on this because they have a base of 4 million members. So, I recommend to anyone reading this who wants to do something to drive home to the Senate Dems that we need a real Public Option, to click on the link below and sign MoveOn’s petition: From MoveOn: “A compiled petition with your individual comment will be presented to leaders in Congress and the White House. Full petition text: “You must make sure health care reform includes a real public option–it’s what the majority of Americans want. Anything less is a gift to Big Insurance.” http://pol.moveon.org/gift/?rc=homepage » Posted By AdLib On December 15, 2009 @ 9:42 am How they will handle it, apparently, is keep the tax refunds from all households that have even just one person not covered. Technically, the IRS can sue everyone who doesn’t do as the law demands. Will they? I can’t imagine so. For those who don’t make enough to pay taxes, there doesn’t seem much that the IRS can do to them, though they will be eligible for gov’t grants to buy insurance anyway. The people who would be hardest hammered by this would be working Americans who usually get tax refunds but don’t qualify for subsidies and can’t afford the premiums. » Posted By AdLib On December 15, 2009 @ 9:36 am They will require you to verify your health insurance details in your income tax filings. If they can’t verify you have a policy, you will get hit with a big fine and have the IRS after you and holding onto your refunds. It is going to be ugly. » Posted By AdLib On December 15, 2009 @ 9:22 am We use Gravatar’s service here, you’ve signed up with Gravatar and assigned this image to your email address. So, wherever you go on the internet, this image will appear when you sign up with the same email address. » Posted By AdLib On December 15, 2009 @ 9:19 am The exchange is not a public option. It is a way for individuals to buy insurance at group rates. Group rates are still very expensive for many Americans and if the insurance companies collude as they always have, group rates will probably just rise up to where individual rates are now. There are no price controls in the bill. An exchange is not an alternative and rates will only rise. This is bad news. » Posted By AdLib On December 15, 2009 @ 9:11 am Any day there’s an excuse to hate Jews, Blacks or Latinos is a good day at HuffPo. » Posted By AdLib On December 15, 2009 @ 12:07 am Hi Hopeington! We have a lot of members on the East Coast and in different countries. The busiest hours here now are around 7pm – 10pm PST. As we keep growing, it’ll extend. Still, glad to see you tonight! » Posted By AdLib On December 15, 2009 @ 12:04 am Joe’s going to be lucky to be running fast enough to escape Dems with pitchforks and torches. » Posted By AdLib On December 14, 2009 @ 11:58 pm Only your Pepto Bismol knows. » Posted By AdLib On December 14, 2009 @ 11:57 pm LOL! » Posted By AdLib On December 14, 2009 @ 10:16 pm Or, “Does having a socialist medical system that turns your country into the equivalent of a poor Eastern European country make you: a. Somewhat depressed » Posted By AdLib On December 14, 2009 @ 10:12 pm Probably a video memory thing on your computer, others can see it. Try rebooting? » Posted By AdLib On December 14, 2009 @ 10:09 pm Khirad asked below about which states allow for recall votes on Senators and Reps, only 18 do: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin. You’ll notice that CT is not among them. However, the question did inspire me. Maybe we should be campaigning with allies to get a proposition on the next ballot in CT or as soon as possible, that would allow voters in CT to recall their Senators and Reps? Then Joe COULD be recalled and a Progressive Dem put in his place before 2012. Actually, the Dems should have been doing this behind the scenes along the way to keep pressure on him. » Posted By AdLib On December 14, 2009 @ 10:04 pm So that you can see what I found so convincing that the Public Option and the Medicare buy-in is likely dead, here’s the clip from Rachel Maddow with Sen. Wyden. Please note how Rachel also specifically mentions the change in Wyden’s tone and words on the bill from previous interviews. This is straight from the horse’s mouth, Wyden was in the middle of the meetings and discussions with Lieberman and on the face of the HC bill. Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy » Posted By AdLib On December 14, 2009 @ 9:38 pm I find it’s just a good practice everywhere on the internet to say things so no one could misinterpret them as real threats by adding, “not really” or “just joking” if it’s not very clea. As for me, I’d like to drop Lieberman over Afghanistan and use his head as a Bunker Buster. Whoops, guess he had a deficiency of depleted uranium in his head, sorry Joe! Not! » Posted By AdLib On December 14, 2009 @ 9:33 pm Unfortunately not. This issue came up after Lieberman campaigned for McCain/Palin. Lieberman can’t be ipmeached or recalled, he is locked in for just over 3 more years. » Posted By AdLib On December 14, 2009 @ 9:21 pm To those who understandably didn’t want to vote on the poll above because of how it was worded, I have revised it to make it a hypothetical question…which I should have from the start. Now that there’s an “if” instead of “will”, I hope everyone feels more comfortable voting. » Posted By AdLib On December 14, 2009 @ 9:18 pm Hmm…it’s a bit contradictory. If the rules forbid something, how can it be done? BTW, you’re the best for researching it though! I didn’t have much luck on finding categorically what has been expressed repeatedly from every politician and news channel who have spoken to this. But the rules that you quote do seem pretty clear. » Posted By AdLib On December 14, 2009 @ 9:15 pm I just wish that a state could impeach a Senator! He’s just going to continue sabotaging Dems and Obama for 3 more years! » Posted By AdLib On December 14, 2009 @ 9:11 pm That’s not the case. The principle of Reconciliation is that any provision that was approved in one house that appears in a different form in the other house’s can be modified in conference. Reconciliation applies to the specific terms, not the bills in general. Any provisions not appearing in both bills can’t be reconciled because of course there is no existing provision to be reconciled. Such lone provisions are discarded. » Posted By AdLib On December 14, 2009 @ 9:00 pm Though in the short term, not sharing that tactic with Dems would incur their anger, having it in, in some form, would do as you say, allow for a more robust PO. Actually, that may be the only possible solution here, if they add a trigger at this point maybe a PO could be added. I’m not very optimistic at this point, very discouraged. » Posted By AdLib On December 14, 2009 @ 8:55 pm If The House will not vote for a Reconciled bill which would necessarily require that the PO is removed, then there would be no final bill. The up side would be that the pressure would turn to The Senate to draft a new bill that in some way has at least some kind of public option. This however will take a number of months IF it can ever be passed. » Posted By AdLib On December 14, 2009 @ 8:52 pm That’s exactly why Lieberman preempted the CBO Report. Word was coming back that it would be a positive report so Lieberman went from saying 3 days ago that he would wait to see it to announcing Sunday that he would oppose it anyway. » Posted By AdLib On December 14, 2009 @ 8:48 pm nellie, I wish that could be the case but as I’ve mentioned, there cannot be an addition of a Public Option to the Final bill unless it originally appears in one form or another in both bills. Again, if it’s not in The Senate bill, it can’t be added in through Reconciliation. This is for all the marbles, if The Senate kills the Public Option and Medicare buy-in, it is dead for the final bill. » Posted By AdLib On December 14, 2009 @ 8:44 pm Here is the logistical problem, a Public Option can’t be arrived at in Reconciliation if it doesn’t exist in one form or another in The Senate bill. Again, if it’s not in the Senate bill, there can’t be a Public Option in the final bill. You are absolutely right! This is absolutely the time for Dems to step up loudly and aggressively to do whatever we can to head off this now-likely conclusion. » Posted By AdLib On December 14, 2009 @ 8:40 pm I have to say, my hope reservoir on the Senate’s bill is depleted after seeing and hearing Wyden. I’m not trying to be a downer but it was pretty apparent that Wyden is convinced the Public Option is dead and he’s in the middle of it all in The Senate. I’ll take his perception over anyone in the media. » Posted By AdLib On December 14, 2009 @ 8:35 pm Pepe and Khirad, the poll above is only asking if you would approve of the bill if this is the case, not asking if you’re agreeing that it will be the case or committing anyone to anything (it is an anonymous poll). What I’m trying to do is look ahead to where it looks like things are going. If any strongly doubt this is going to be the case, please go to msnbc.com and check out her interview with Sen. Ron Wyden. The reality of where things are headed will seem pretty apparent. » Posted By AdLib On December 14, 2009 @ 8:29 pm Then no bill will pass. The Senate will have a vote within the week, from what they are saying and the look on Sen. Wyden’s face and the tone and content of his discussion, thir bill won’t have a public option though it may have a co-op type plan to help individuals get group rates. And of course, today’s individual rates are tomorrow’s group rates. » Posted By AdLib On December 14, 2009 @ 8:24 pm I feel like I was kicked in the gut. That Joe Lieberman alone is being allowed to corrupt full health care reform, harm millions of Americans and the future of health care for this nation is very offensive. I am torn. The reforms that would be made are meaningful. But the servitude this would mandate between the American people and the Insurance industry goes against the principles of a free society. In keeping with the medical theme, it appears to me that when it comes to this HC Reform bill, the operation is a success but the patient died. » Posted By AdLib On December 14, 2009 @ 8:19 pmComments Posted By AdLib
b. Very depressed
c. Motivated to bring a gun to a town hall meeting.
«« Back To Stats Page
Home Stats